Writing an article for the Cenocracy.org website gives a writer the opportunity
to re-think ideas which might not have come to mind if one were not obliged to
make considerations from the perspective of a "Cenocratic Revolutionist", though
actually being one and trying to think as one might, are perspectives which may be
miles apart. One might imagine themselves as a Thomas Paine writing a theme called
"Common Sense" and concealing oneself with a Pen name... even though names are not
being used since the authors are dedicated to promoting a Cenocracy and not themselves.
It's rather quite fun in a sort of 'invisible writing', secret handshake and decoder
ring way... though such analogies may not be appreciated by all the die hard Cenocrats
in the respectful, but jocular way to which they are rendered. But, this is the way
in which I will play the present game at hand.

Politics. It's a game, albeit a serious one because of the consequences which
might ensue from making a wrong move, or even if it is the right move at the wrong
time. This is politics. Some refer to it as a game, others prefer to distance
themselves from such a moniker because it gives the impression of an undesirable
disparagement, by defining it as a sport... thus anointing it with some token of
respectability while being able to retain a simplicity of analogical analysis because
there are a lot more people who grow up being introduced to and playing sports than
some more serious academic venture such as physics.

But discussing the analogy of a sport requires that we momentarily indulge in trying
to recreate an image in the reader as to the level of seriousness in which the
sport is played. For this, we must indulge ourselves in a bit of retrograde
time-travel to the ancient days of the Mayans in which a game called "Pitz" was played
under the rules that the losers lost their lives... that one might suppose was a
means of legalizing the act of sacrificing someone to a god, without offending the
public by way of some arbitrary selection process... though we should mention the
process in which slaves and others were used in a socially accepted formula of
gladiatorial performances... thus suggesting that those selected for playing in
the Mayan ball game were those who were inexperienced and had to play, or be killed
for refusing to do so, possibly against a King's well sponsored Home Team.

Whether or not the selection process for developing Mayan ball players was carried
out in this way, it known that the losers were killed; at least that is what has
been interpreted by those claiming some knowledge of the cryptographic writing that
the Mayans left. The life and death consequences under which the game, or sport was
played, is, in a sense, better suited as a means to define the sport of present day
politics, even though the loss of the pursuit of a goal to obtain a job as a politician,
does not regularly lead to someone's death. The seriousness to which we of the
present must speak is related to political decisions which effect lives in varying
measures. While policies which assist the public to avoid or get out of dire consequences
may always represent a decision about life and death, some decisions do... such as
those related to military activity or those involving individual politicians whose
personal actions may have resulted in the death of someone for which their politically-
aligned friends help them to cover up the assault.

Politics is a very serious game, that is, sport... though not all game plays,
called decisions, have life and death consequences for someone. Political positions
can provide someone with access to enormous quantities and types of resources,
which includes the power of persuasion that holding a government office can have
on some people. In short, some people will do anything in order to be able to
be in a position of political prestige. However, there are others who prefer to
be able to have controlling access to such prestige, but don't want to be recognized
as a "player" in the political game... i.e. sport. Hence, there are numerous other
people involved in the sport of politics, and the media may be totally oblivious
of them or feels the particular participation of someone is not news worthy. Such
is the sport of politics, like so many other sports.

In the sport of politics we find variations of that called Democracy which is
most often being played. Some variations have labels attesting to a distinct difference
such as Communism or Socialism, but analysts tend to make overlapping correlations;
thus rendering a "True" form of Communism, Socialism, or even Democracy, a very rare
item. There are other named variations dealing with specifics of intent on the part
of those playing a dominant authoritative role such as Theocracy, Autocracy, Plutocracy,
etc... In other words, the label "politics" might be generalized into a reference
including all forms of governing systems being played with rules that may be the
same, similar, or an entirely separate observance of "how to play the game".

By viewing the variations in which the sport of politics is being played throughout
the world, one might consider each variation as a different player with their own
personality. This is an important point because it helps to identify that what we
have is an overall similar game being played by the same types of players. For example,
it is like the sport of baseball with its league variations, but all the players
are those whose behaviors are directed towards playing the game of baseball and
not some other sport such as golf or basketball, though some of the players may
engage in such activities as an occasional past time. While the simplicity of this
observation is overlooked and taken matter-of-factly, it needs to be acknowledged
because it reveals the fact there is no new game, with new types of players
emerging. In other words, no one is inventing a new type of game requiring a new
type of player. Even though a Cenocracy is, by way of comparative analysis, a
differently designed playing field of social governance, it is a Democracy with
new rules permitting more people to play the game... thus advantaging the whole
of a Nation or even the world... that is if the whole world would redesign their
own fields in a like manner.

When different countries construct playing fields which are quite different
from other countries, such as North Korea, ridiculous, non-sensical relationships
with other countries can ensue. It's not that those playing on a similarly outlined
field can't have disagreements, because the "rules of play" are interpreted and
thus played out differently, there is at least some level of commonality to share
and train the players to think in some similarity of fashion. Whereas the field
is the same, the goal (maybe) the same, and the rules are the same, the same rules
may be used differently because customs of culture may impose an influence. And,
such an interpretation may well be differently interpreted by different readers
whose perspectives are different. Nonetheless, we are all thinking within the field
of consideration involving sports analogies.

As with sports, so it is with politics. And politics involves those games known
as Protest, Revolution and Revolt. If those involved in one or more of these three
permit themselves to forced into playing on a field designed by those who are viewed
as an opponent, the opponent will have the "Home field" advantage, like someone
having to play a game of billiards on the table owned by an opponent whose knowledge
of the table's "quirks", advantages them in their turn at play, generally known
as their shots. The more quirks and the better one is able to remember them, the
more one may assist themselves in having an advantage over another player. The same
is true in politics. One tries to advantage oneself through association with other
"famous" players in or of the game, by increasing the percentage of money to be
used for self-promotion, as well as by playing what may be called "dirty pool",
typically known as cheating. The cheating may involve the use of information to
discredit an opponent's character, as if a particular characterization is an
indication that they person isn't trust-worthy or has some other quality which
would detract from their ability to perform their job well. Instead of using the
phrase "dirty pool", we might use "dirty politics".

It is of some interest to note that while cheating in a conventional sport is
widely frowned on, it is not always the case in the game of politics. It frequently
becomes played as a form of no-holds-barred wrestling match. Thus, in this light,
those winning a "match" in a political arena, might well be suspect of having
cheated in order to obtain their position... and that such cheating will be that
which is used by them as a tool in order to perform the duties of the office which
they have "won". It also is the frame of mind with which Protestors, Revolutionists
and Revolters may have to contend with. Not only do politicians representing a
government want to frame the field upon which their game is to be played, but they
want to own all the concession stands, employ all stadium workers, script game-related
news coverage commentary, but insist that their opponents abide by set rules though
they are permitted to use arbitrary ones as well... whatever will give them the
home-field advantage. They are scared to death to face an opponent who not only
knows all of their tricks, but knows how to beat them at their own game.

A new game is coming to town and that game is Cenocracy. Cenocracy will have
many champions (i.e. leaders). It is already being favored by some because it is
the under-dog and might be used by some as a type of eponym describing the situation
between the biblical characters known as David and Goliath or a staff-wielding
enslaved Moses pitted against a Pharaoh whose resources are wide and deep. The people,
as spectators, are waiting and willing to accept the formation and adoption of a
new game because the old one has repeatedly brought disfavorable results for all
the money they have had to shell out for not only the initial admission fee, but
recurring fees for the usage of sanitation facilities, access to sustenance, lighting,
etc... The presently played game of Democracy is a never-ending structure of costs
which enable a small percentage the ability to horde the largest percentage of gains.
It's an inequality that the present game of Democracy uses as a standard rule-of-play,
but that a Cenocracy will enable the people themselves to change in order to effect
a more equalized Redistribution of socio-political power.

And while a reference to Sherlock Holmes was made on the "Psychoanalyzing Democracy"
page, I would like to append a rather fortuitous notation when he said "The Game's
Afoot". And if I may be permitted the sports-related usage of old Monarchial
terms without being viewed as one who advocates such a governing structure, Cenocracy
is a viable contender to the 'throne' of social governance being sat on by the
present "personality/style" of a Democracy, though some prefer to call America's
government a Plutocracy. Imagine the sophistication of a game like chess being
played out by millions of people at the same time. Present chess, like present
governing systems, limit the number of players as a set rule, and do not permit
the people to play the game with a rule set Of, By and For themselves. What a marvelous
concept! There will not only be a manifold increase in players and attendant performers,
but the strategies of governance to effect a greater equality will be a presently
unfathomable distance from that being currently used to justify the limitation for
indulging in the practice of particularlized equalities to serve the motives of
a few.

While the knee-jerk reactions of some observers in the crowd will be to claim
that nothing less than chaos will follow, they do not think in terms of a re-designed
playing field as well. They are thinking that trying to put more players on a single
field will destroy the game, in fact make it impossible to play the game because
their will be too many players. Their minds are just as boundary-minded as those
who play all conventional games— which practice a form of discrimination that
forces a limitation on being able to conceptualize beyond the traditional boundaries.
Those who profess to be a 'king' on Capital hill, are going to find themselves at
a loss when they are dethroned by making the hill a level playing field. There is
more than one way to play the game of "King of the Hill". If an ordinary person or
group of people played by the rules set by the king(s) and their supportive attendants,
they can't win. The deck is stacked against them. While the usage of an over-whelming
force can advantage oneself in a win, just as might a destruction of the prevailing
nests in which the pests live, work and play, such conventional tactics very often
lead to a return of the old system with different players. This is not what a
Cenocracy is about. Cenocracy seeks to practice a level 'socio-political power' playing
field.

Some people realistically get into present day politics so they can increase
their chances of being able to use a system of built-in inequalities to advantage
themselves... though there are a number of politicians whose efforts are particularly
altruistically directed. But it is difficult to be a person of sincere altruistic
principles when they are confronted by a system of governance in which they find a
large measure of self-centered dishonesty as a valid strategy in playing the game
of governance. Some people find that the measure of dishonesty is so high and so
anti-public they become disgusted and leave the field of politics for good... though
they sincerely wanted and thought to make a needed difference in the lives of the
public. They discover that their childhood impressions of what it means to be a
governing leader to be based on fantasies involving some intrepid champion of
goodness, justice and truth. The real world of politics can be as much a paradise
as it is a cesspool, or exhibit the three realms of Dante (Heaven, Purgatory, Hell).
It is a world, a labyrinth, a distortion of reality that Protestors, Revolutionists
and Revolters may well come up against if they remain undaunted in their goals.
Every nook and cranny of this distorted reality is known by those who will do
anything in their power to keep it intact... unless a new reality can be shown to
advantage them as well. They do not like level playing fields. Though they will
try to put any number of types of Minotaur in the way, they do not think in terms
of there being a Theseus (slayer of the Minotaur and the one who united the territory
of ancient Greece's Athens called Attica.) While politicians frequently engage in
activities resembling events in ancient myth and legend, they do so only to the
extent they are self-supporting. Their grip on this reality begins to fade when
some protest, revolution or revolt pinches them so hard they have not but to wake
up to a new reality.

Certain players of any game like to surround themselves with those that they
think... think as they or do. If such thoughts predominantly exhibit actions reflecting
a self-centered inclination, though conceals such from all but the most discerning
individuals of human behavior... all the more do they try to attract them into
participating as a "team player". The old idea of there being "safety in numbers",
meaning a quantity of people, can be framed in the interest of a particular
situation such as there being safety in numbers of those sharing the same values.
For example, it is said that thieves like to be amongst other thieves because their
common-mindedness makes them feel at home... though too much of a good thing can
exhaust one's energies if it takes a lot to project an image of high social stature
in a particular regard as part of an adopted role play. This is why "home" to
various players of different games is amongst those who are nothing like themselves...
or at least almost nothing. Some people are good role players but require periods
of time away from the stage upon which a particular script and characterization
are required... or else-wise all others in the same play may get lost because an
ad-libbed performance is difficult to follow for all but the most free-standing players
to creatively, intuitively and even genius-ly equalize... to use the trio of adjectives
being used on previous pages at this site (Though "genius" is a noun being made
into an adjective by the addition of the "ly" suffix).

A society brought up on the premise of fraternity by way of an "Equality, Justice,
Liberty" ensemble, can only practice such to the extent it has been scripted into
the social play. If it provides for a large amount of ad-libbing in order to encourage
the production of creativity, originality and genius, then there will be a larger
pool of participating players. But if it, as it presently does, promote the adopted
usage of a constraining script whose players must wait for or take the lead from
specific others in specifically theatricalized settings of conventionalized performances,
then the number of players is substantially reduced because the script writers
themselves are singularly-minded in a limited ability to think outside the boxes
of conventional conception they have been brought up in; to reflect in their own
role playing abilities... or lack thereof. A government structure is a script developed
by script writers of a given ability... much of which is the ability to control
who can directly or even indirectly participate in the overall social production
and to what degree. Presently practiced forms of Democracy perpetuate scripts meant
to limit direct participation to a few, and limit direct participation to the Many.
This is the standard of "Equality" being practiced, where implied observances of
"limitations" are equalized through a convolution of language.

By using the same language, the public is patriotically persuaded to think they
are being provided with an unassailable model of Equality, when it is in fact a
greatly reduced percentage of Equality, Justice and Liberty. If one is not truly
free to enjoy the benefits of a fair equality and there is no Justice to protect
the public's interests in this regard; what the people are being subjected to is
a modernized form of Monarchial serfdom practicing an indentured form of servitude
in the form, to use but one example, of a legislated tax code for which they do
not have an actual Self Representation for. Vicarious Representation is just another
flavor of promoting a Government's Right to Tax without Representation. It is a
rule of the governance game that is in deep need of revision. It is part of an old
system of statutes whose time has come to be reformulated.

Like several actors who have wanted to try their hand at directing, and several
citizens have tried their hand at being a Legislative stage manager, the larger
population has moved away from its star-struck days when in the presence of those
having acquired a "high" political office and want the ability to practice the
making of laws on their own. Such an event does not in any way presupposed a
rejection or nullification of those whose views are well-worth heeding like a
seasoned actor or actress making some constructive point to an inexperienced player.
But the player will no doubt make mistakes and learn from them. In time, the larger
pool of players will gradually learn the process of governance and the role they
can actually play, then merely as someone sitting in an audience at a stadium,
engaging in antics to support the players whose activities are directed more inward
towards their own goals, than they are outward. In fact, both actors and ball-field
players are taught and learn how to, for the most part, ignore those in attendance,
even though they remain cognizant of the need to "make a name" for themselves above
and beyond their role playing title.

In a short discussion about types of "ball-fields", one must note that they generally
are male-centered and male-dominant organizations, that some might characterize as
'clubs for men' or "a gentleman's club", that were once, at least in Britain, well
established places of congregation which excluded females. The inclusion of females
generally meant a place where the potential for some sexual interlude might ensue.
And though some women have gained entry into male-dominant sports, there are accepted
forms of exclusion for both men and women, boys and girls, families and single persons,
etc., and etc... To enforce exclusions based on race or religion or some other criteria,
a group might refer to itself as being a private organization. But to avoid the usage
of anything that might trigger a backlash of condemnation, a group wanting to practice
a Right to conduct an exclusion, must do so by way of constructing a ball or playing
field that, by design, does so without giving the impression of doing so. It can
provide obstacles and out-right obstructions denoted as a process or procedure that
everyone must abide to and with, or make a person's acquired presence a systematic
exercise in ostracism. If one is born into a society where various versions of this
take place as an accepted social practice, the practices may be difficult to recognize
because they are routinely occurring events like a series of highway billboards,
if not apples on trees in an apple orchard.

If there is not a widely experienced over-night realization that the usage of
a Cenocratic formula is better for the overall public than the presently practiced
form of Democracy, those wishing to advocate the preparation for such a realization
to occur, either wholly or by way of a piece-meal incrementalism; must use a game
of protest which will educate the larger public in this respect... that is if current
leadership does not lend a hand. But if current leadership does ascertain the benefit
to the people, but do not want a Cenocratic system to evolve, they may well decide
to interfere with one's efforts. Instead of permitting a viable contender to the
"political throne" to train, make a public appearance, or announce a public Declaration
for a pugilistic contest of wits; efforts and resources may be directed to quashing
the initial stages of development towards these ends. With respect to keeping the
identity of a Cenocracy out of the Public's purview, they might attempt to prolong
a distraction that influences and encourages the media to attend to something else.
Then again, they may want to set Cenocracy up for ridicule as if it were a light-weight
challenging a heavy-weight, or a horse winning several small races claiming it is
ready to take on those having won large, or "named" races.

And whether or not one agrees, and despite the claim by some that a Cenocracy is
coming; it is already here, beginning its debut on the social stage though the
audience as well as actors and actresses are just arriving. Though you may call
it a show instead of a game or sport, it nonetheless is a real-life event. There
will be many, many, many roles and positions to play... even for those caring to
yell FIRE! or call in a bomb threat... though this is a game not be called on any
account of rain or someone holding a fire-hydrant hose to insinuate a cancellation.
Today's forms of democratic governance, presently have top billing, but its days
are numbered... even though like ancient Romans, who may have thought their
superiority would forever be enduring... thus begging the question of "To be or
not to be a Cenocrat?"... is not really a fair question when one was born a
Cenocratic even though they had no conscious realization thereof... until now.